Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete BIM Plan', implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns any confirmation. The endpoint hint suggests an HTTP DELETE, but no further context is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two parts: 'Delete BIM Plan.' and '[Preconstruction/BIM] DELETE /rest/v1.0/bim_plans/{id}'. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the additional endpoint info is relevant but not verbose. However, it could be more structured by separating usage hints from the core description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, consequences, return values, or error handling. For a deletion tool with two required parameters, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'id' (BIM Plan ID) and 'project_id' (Unique identifier for the project) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as format or relationship. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete BIM Plan' states the action (Delete) and resource (BIM Plan), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., delete_bim_model, delete_bim_model_revision) or specify what a BIM Plan is, making it vague in context. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a category '[Preconstruction/BIM]' and an endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/bim_plans/{id}', but these do not indicate when to choose this over other deletion tools or any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.